4 ms·

It has been a long time since I looked at FreeDOS. When in it's nascent days I tried to get it running for some old DOS Games and couldn't get it to work. It ma

It has been a long time since I looked at FreeDOS. When in it's nascent days I tried to get it running for some old DOS Games and couldn't get it to work. It may be a lot better now. FreeDOS's main problem is that DOSBox can run almost everything in a modern OS backdrop. DOSBox CAN run windows 3.1 as well, and I believe Windows 95. And you can drop out of it to a modern networked OS whenever you need to. Sure it's less efficient, but there's now 100x (maybe 1000x) more power in the CPU. For FreeDOS to really achieve its goals it likely needs several things: 1) works in a VM (which it appears to do) 2) runs almost all DOS software in a VM, this involves drivers that would enable long term VM compatibility. Do VMs have a "general networking driver" and "general video driver". 3) provide utilities for networking 4) ... this is the hard one: FreeDOS would need to curate, collect, and provide collections of old DOS software with modern-friendly installers. The challenge here is legality and copyright. Collections of WordPerfect / etc Collections of the compilers / interpreters (Turbo Pascal, Turbo C++) There are ongoing significant work in preserving Games with eXoDOS, but it's noteworthy that eXoDOS and eXoWIN (the 3.X windows preservation project) don't seem to use freedos at all. As stated, DOSBox handles most DOS software. But one of the biggest emulation/preservation blind spots right now is the Windows 3.1 --> Windows 98 non-NT kernel software that was semi-DOS and semi-not. The programs could run roughshod on the memory space and APIs, but bridged to the gigahertz era of x86 CPUs. And x86 CPUs are a bear to emulate between all the modes and ISA extensions over the years.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
> 2) runs almost all DOS software in a VM, this involves drivers that would enable long term VM compatibility. Do VMs have a "general networking driver" and "general video driver". For network, you probably want VirtIO. For video, just VESA? Although honestly I don't know that that's needed; VMs can just provide emulated devices for which drivers already exist.
zamadatix 5y ago
For 2) hypervisors usually have compatibility with select older devices such as the E1000 network adapter (and other older ones even) enabling older systems to interface without needing anything special for virtualization on older guests. There is also of course nothing preventing folks from continuing to add drivers for newer/more efficient virtual adapters, after all they already wrote the OS and the virtual adapters have open source implementations to base off of. Between the two of these methods drivers are pretty well covered as is. 3) is already part of the FreeDOS installer. 4) Is best left to some other project(s) both from a scope perspective as well as the legal perspective you mention. Particularly for modernizing the installers. DOS software collections are quite easy to come by, particularly with organizations like Internet Archive.
accrual 5y ago
For #4, one can find a lot of useful DOS software between WinWorldPC and Archive.org. https://winworldpc.com/library/applications https://winworldpc.com/library/applications https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos
rnd0 5y ago
DOSBox-X can run anything up to 98, I think; not sure about ME. It also runs across multiple operating systems (it's even in NetBSD's pkgsrc). For number 2, "it depends"; qemu, vmware, etc all have different features. An alternative is to use something like 86Box (https://github.com/86Box/86Box/ https://github.com/86Box/86Box/) which can present the OS with a complete DOS-era computer with video and other peripherals. For number 3; I think there's a networking set in the freedos distribution. I have no idea how robust it is, though. Number four -why? Unless I'm very wrong, the aim of freedos isn't to preserve the dos software landscape but to ensure that there's an ms-dos compatible operating system out there if people want to use it. Also, winworldpc has a fair amount of dos software as does archive.org as I remember. >As stated, DOSBox handles most DOS software. But one of the biggest emulation/preservation blind spots right now is the Windows 3.1 --> Windows 98 non-NT kernel software that was semi-DOS and semi-not. The software is largely still out there, and 86box covers the emulation. The real blind spot is the early 00's hole where computers were too complex to emulate well but things are just slightly incompatible with modern operating systems.
paulryanrogers 5y ago
> FreeDOS's main problem is that DOSBox can run almost everything in a modern OS backdrop. IMO it's a matter of perspective. I'd say FreeDOS is already a success as a modern, maintained DOS implementation. The fact that most users find DOSBox and its forks more useful doesn't diminish FD. More software isn't a problem.

yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago

> 2) runs almost all DOS software in a VM, this involves drivers that would enable long term VM compatibility. Do VMs have a "general networking driver" and "general video driver". For network, you probably want VirtIO. For video, just VESA? Although honestly I don't know that that's needed; VMs can just provide emulated devices for which drivers already exist.

zamadatix 5y ago

For 2) hypervisors usually have compatibility with select older devices such as the E1000 network adapter (and other older ones even) enabling older systems to interface without needing anything special for virtualization on older guests. There is also of course nothing preventing folks from continuing to add drivers for newer/more efficient virtual adapters, after all they already wrote the OS and the virtual adapters have open source implementations to base off of. Between the two of these methods drivers are pretty well covered as is. 3) is already part of the FreeDOS installer. 4) Is best left to some other project(s) both from a scope perspective as well as the legal perspective you mention. Particularly for modernizing the installers. DOS software collections are quite easy to come by, particularly with organizations like Internet Archive.

accrual 5y ago

For #4, one can find a lot of useful DOS software between WinWorldPC and Archive.org. https://winworldpc.com/library/applications https://winworldpc.com/library/applications https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos

rnd0 5y ago

DOSBox-X can run anything up to 98, I think; not sure about ME. It also runs across multiple operating systems (it's even in NetBSD's pkgsrc). For number 2, "it depends"; qemu, vmware, etc all have different features. An alternative is to use something like 86Box (https://github.com/86Box/86Box/ https://github.com/86Box/86Box/) which can present the OS with a complete DOS-era computer with video and other peripherals. For number 3; I think there's a networking set in the freedos distribution. I have no idea how robust it is, though. Number four -why? Unless I'm very wrong, the aim of freedos isn't to preserve the dos software landscape but to ensure that there's an ms-dos compatible operating system out there if people want to use it. Also, winworldpc has a fair amount of dos software as does archive.org as I remember. >As stated, DOSBox handles most DOS software. But one of the biggest emulation/preservation blind spots right now is the Windows 3.1 --> Windows 98 non-NT kernel software that was semi-DOS and semi-not. The software is largely still out there, and 86box covers the emulation. The real blind spot is the early 00's hole where computers were too complex to emulate well but things are just slightly incompatible with modern operating systems.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

> FreeDOS's main problem is that DOSBox can run almost everything in a modern OS backdrop. IMO it's a matter of perspective. I'd say FreeDOS is already a success as a modern, maintained DOS implementation. The fact that most users find DOSBox and its forks more useful doesn't diminish FD. More software isn't a problem.